3 ms·
Electrics like Tesla and others blow far past the most stringent fuel economy minimums. The Model 3 sedan gets close to 140 MPG equivalent! You might expect the
by LeifCarrotson 5y ago
Electrics like Tesla and others blow far past the most stringent fuel economy minimums. The Model 3 sedan gets close to 140 MPG equivalent! You might expect the heavy, larger Model S to perform more poorly, and you'd be right...it only gets 93 mpg.
It's a simple matter of economics; even a big battery pack contains fewer kWh than a gas tank so electric cars essentially must be streamlined. Even the Cybertruck with its huge battery and utilitarian aesthetic is aerodynamic: It looks more like a crossover SUV than a conventional pickup truck, with its streamlined windshield, sail pillars, and automatic tonneau cover. This isn't for aesthetic reasons, it's because these changes are required to reach the desired range numbers. Low-rolling-resistance tires are standard on electrics not because they're cheap for electric vehicle manufacturers, but because they're cheaper than installing larger batteries. Meanwhile, before it even hits the torque converter or transmission, a gasoline engine only turns 25-30% of that chemical energy into useful work. Conversely, an electric motor turns 90-95% of the energy in the battery into useful work.
An electric vehicle that couldn't make the 27.5 mpg CAFE minimum would be pathetic and would not be a viable product.
- mike_d 5y agoMPG equivalent externalizes fuel production, which when charging your car at night - is primarily done by burning coal. If you burned gasoline to make magic wizard juice and then powered your car off of that, it does not make the car any better for the environment.
- martythemaniak 5y agoThis is a lie. My Tesla is nuclear powered. Nuclear provides baseload power which can't be easily spun or or down, so overnight power is almost entirely nuclear and carbon free.
- mike_d 5y agoAre you directly connected to this nuclear plant, or to the grid? Even as a baseline energy source nuclear accounts for a maximum of 19% of generation. 60% comes from burning dinosaurs in various forms.
- martythemaniak 5y agohttps://app.electricitymap.org/zone/CA-ON https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/CA-ON
- mike_d 5y agoIf you zoom out, you'll see that is the cherry picked exception, not the rule. The entire generation capacity of Ontario is 17 GW. You are correct, it isn't hard to go all nuclear and hydro for 3/4 the population of New York. That isn't the case in the rest of North America.
- DarmokJalad1701 5y agoDepends on the area. In my state, over 60% of production at night is from wind. I have solar at home and so I charge my car during the day. Besides, the average emissions per kWh of a large power plant is significantly lesser than several thousand smaller ICEs due to basic thermodynamics.
- beerandt 5y ago>far past the most stringent fuel economy minimums. Only because the efficiency of generating and transmitting electricity isn't included. Electricity generation is generally only ~30% efficient. Transmission and grid for on-demand power slightly reduces efficiency further, while non-on-demand sources like solar and wind result in higher than apparent grid inefficiencies, since the grid investment tied to it is also only as efficient as the power source. Solar efficiency is 20%, and lower when you factor in grid inefficiencies due to its variability. Yes, the cost of solar already reflects these inefficiencies (land use, etc), but so does the costs of other fuels. And most batteries aren't getting anywhere near the efficiency on the label either. All that heat coming off the battery when charging (especially using a supercharger) isn't free energy either.